The International Relations Department of the Executive
Committee of the Petrograd Soviet has sent a letter to Huysmans,
well-known as Secretary of the bankrupt Second International,
whose members went over to the side of “their” national
governments.

This letter, published in issue No. 78 of Izvestia,
tries to prove that the Russian Narodniks and Mensheviks, who
joined the bourgeois and imperialist government, cannot be
“compared” to the West-European betrayers of socialism, who
joined “their” governments. The “Department’s” case is so feeble
and pitiful, so ludicrously impotent that it needs to be shown
up again and again in all its unsightly futility.

Argument 1. In other countries these people joined the
government “under entirely different conditions”. This is not
true. The difference between Britain, France, Denmark, Belgium,
Italy, etc., on the one hand, and present-day Russia, on the
other, is “entirely” negligible. Everyone who has
not betrayed socialism knows that the question at issue
is the class rule of the bourgeoisie. In this
respect conditions in all the countries mentioned above are the
same, and not “different”. National peculiarities do not in the
least affect the basic issue of bourgeois class rule.

Argument 2. “Our” ministers have joined a “revolutionary”
government. This is a disgraceful method of hoodwinking the
people by means of the great word “revolution”, which the
Mensheviks and Narodniks use to cover up their betrayal of
it. Everyone knows that ten of the sixteen ministers in today’s
“revolutionary” government belong to the parties of the
landowners and capitalists, who stand for the imperialist
war
and non-publication of the secret treaties, and that these
parties are now pursuing a counter-revolutionary
policy. This was clearly demonstrated by the elections to the
District Councils of Petrograd on May 27–29, when all
the Black-Hundred elements rallied to support the
majority in our “revolutionary” government.

Argument 3. “Our” ministers joined “with a definite man date to
achieve world peace by agreement among the nations and not to
drag out the imperialist war for The sake of liberating the
nations by force of arms”. For one thing, this mandate is not
“definite” at all, since it implies neither a definite
programme nor any definite action. These are
mere words. It is like the secretary of a labour union becoming
an executive member of a capitalist association at a salary of
10,000 rubles “with a definite mandate” to work for the welfare
of labour and not drag out the rule of capitalism. Second,
all imperialists, including Wilhelm and Poincaré,
are out for “an agreement among the nations”. This, too, is an
empty phrase. Third, the war on Russia’s part, since May 6,
1917, is obviously being “dragged out”, among other reasons,
because our imperialist government has so far failed to announce
or propose clear and precise terms of peace, terms of an
agreement.

Argument 4. “Our” ministers aim is not cessation of the class
struggle, but its continuation by means of the instruments of
political power”. Splendid! All you need to do is to cloak
vileness with a good aim or a good excuse for participation in
vileness—and the trick is done! Participation in a
bourgeois imperialist government, which is actually
waging an imperialist war, may, it appears, be called
“continuation of the class struggle by means of instruments of
political power”. This is a perfect gem. We suggest that at
every workers’ and public meeting three cheers should be raised
for Chernov, Tsereteli, Peshekhionov and Skobelev, who are
waging “a class struggle” against Tereshchenko, Lvov
and Co.

You will be laughed to scorn, gentlemen of the “Department”, for
defending ministerialism with such arguments. You are not
original, though. The famous Vandervelde, friend of Plekhanov
(whom you scold, although, since you have joined the cabinet,
you have no moral right to do so),
said long ago that he, too,
had joined the cabinet “to continue the class struggle”.

Argument 5. “Our” ministers joined the cabinet after the
overthrow of tsarism and the expulsion of the enemies of the
Russian proletariat [i.e., Milyukov and Guchkov] by the movement
of the revolutionary mass on April 20–21”.

You can hardly blame the French for having overthrown their
autocracy 122 years ago, instead of 100 days ago, or the English
for having done it over 260 years ago, or the Italians for
having done it decades ago. April 20 saw Milyukov ejected and
replaced by Tereshchenko, i.e., absolutely nothing has changed
as far as class or party relations are concerned. New promises
do not imply a new policy.

You could dismiss the Metropolitan and put the Pope in his
place, but that does not mean you would cease to be a clerical.

Argument 6. In Russia “there is full freedom for the proletariat
and the army”. That is untrue—it is not full. It
is fuller than in other countries, and all the more shameful
therefore is it to soil this young unsullied freedom
with the dirt of participation in a bourgeois imperialist
government.

The Russian betrayers of socialism differ from their European
namesakes no more than the rapist differs from the ravisher.

Argument 7. “Moreover the Russian proletariat has the means of
exercising complete control over those it elects.”

That is untrue. Partyism in Russia is so young and
disintegration among the Mensheviks and
Socialist-Revolutionaries is so evident (Martov’s
semi-breakaway, Kamkov’s protests and his forming a bloc with
us at the elections against his own party, the
Menshevik-S.R. bloc with Yedinstvo, which they
themselves call imperialist, etc.) that there can be no
question of any serious, not to say “complete”, control of the
ministers on the part of the proletariat.

Besides, proletariat is a class concept, which the
Mensheviks and Narodniks have no right to use, because they rely
mostly on the support of the petty bourgeoisie. Once
you speak of classes, be precise!

Argument 8. “The fact that representatives of the Russian
socialist [?] proletariat [?] have joined the government does
not imply any weakening of its bonds with the socialists of all
countries who are fighting against imperialism. On the contrary,
it signifies a strengthening of those bonds in the joint
struggle for world peace.”

Everyone knows that their joining the government in Russia has
strengthened the bonds that unite the
adherents of imperialism, the social-chauvinists, the
social-imperialists of all countries—Henderson and
Co., Thomas and Co., Scheidemann and Co.

Yes,Scheidemann, too! For he realises that
German social-imperialism will be safe to
continue exercising its baneful influence on the world’s labour
movement, since even the Russians, their great measure
of freedom and their revolution notwithstanding, have entered
into a shameful alliance with their imperialist
bourgeoisie.